The view that Matthew first wrote his gospel in Hebrew or Aramaic seems, as far as we can determine, to have been the view of the early church. Whether, in this view, it was written in Aramaic or Hebrew is hard to determine, since the same Greek word Hebraidi was used for both. There are some modern scholars who contend that Matthew was first written in Aramaic. C. F. Burney, in his work The Poetry of Our Lord (1925) held this position. Others since then have argued to the same effect, as recently as J. W. Wenham, "Gospel Origins," in Trinity Journal (1978): 112-34. Some few have held that the gospel was first composed in Hebrew, but this view has largely been discounted. In other words, the most common view held today is that Matthew was originally written in Greek. A few hold that it was written in Aramaic. A very tiny number hold that it was written in Hebrew. The two latter views are held in large part on the basis of Papias’s statement. The majority, however, find insurmountable problems with that understanding of the statement from Papias quoted last week.
The first argument against an Aramaic or Hebrew original of Matthew is his use of Old Testament quotations. Some of Matthew’s citations of the Old Testament are certainly from the Septuagint (LXX), since they agree with it word for word. Some of his citations seem to have been translated from a Semitic original, while others are unclear as to their origin. If the gospel were first written in Aramaic, the argument goes, the reader would have expected greater consistency in the character of Matthew’s citations. Either the Greek version of Matthew would consistently reflect the translator’s rendering of Matthew’s Aramaic, or the translator would have consistently used the LXX for all of his citations, on the basis that his reader’s would have familiarity with the LXX.
The second argument against an originally Aramaic Matthew depends on the supposition that much of Matthew is dependent on Mark. The view commonly held today is that the three synoptic gospels, Matthew, Mark, and Luke developed in this fashion. Mark was written first. Matthew and Luke depended on Mark for the material that they have in common with Mark. The material that Matthew and Luke have in common, but which is lacking in Mark, they drew from a source that has not been preserved, commonly called Q, from the German Quelle, which means "source." This view is not, however, unanimous, and other views of the origins of the synoptic gospels are held. Eta Linnemann, in her 1992 book, Is There a Synoptic Problem?: Rethinking the Literary Dependence of the First Three Gospels, argues vigorously against the whole modern common view and in favor of an independent origin for the synoptics. Others, such as Donald Guthrie in his, New Testament Introduction (1990), presents both the modern view and the independent origin view as still legitimate possibilities to explain the origin of the gospels. For those unconvinced by the commonly held view of gospel origins, this argument will hold no weight. As D. A. Carson says in his Introduction to the New Testament (1992, p. 68-9), "the detailed verbal connections between Matthew and Mark make it extremely unlikely that Matthew was first written in Aramaic. Of course, those who do not accept the priority of Mark or who propose that an Aramaic edition of Matthew preceded the publication of Mark, which then served as the heart of our Greek Matthew, will perceive no problem here."
To Be Continued
Copyright Statement
'Aramaic Thoughts' Copyright 2024© Benjamin Shaw. 'Aramaic Thoughts' articles may be reproduced in whole under the following provisions: 1) A proper credit must be given to the author at the end of each story, along with a link to https://www.studylight.org/language-studies/aramaic-thoughts.html 2) 'Aramaic Thoughts' content may not be arranged or "mirrored" as a competitive online service.